A new AA defense vehicle for US
- Thread starter Oska
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There are two US GBAD (ground-based air defence) systems which are missile/gun combo platforms, these are the M6 Linebacker and the Avenger.
The M6 Linebacker is a variant of the Bradley IFV, where the TOW missiles were replaced with Stinger missiles, along with the required targeting equipment, sights, etc to allow effective use of the Stinger. It still retains the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun of the regular Bradley IFV, and it also able to use that to engage aircraft.
The Avenger is a Stinger/0.50 cal. HMG mounting on yet another variant of the Humvee. Again with the relevant sights, etc.
Both systems are intended to provide SHORAD (short-ranged air defence), given the relatively short range of the Stinger missiles. Additional, while both have guns as well, the relatively low ROF of the Bushmaster (~200 rpm max) and the range and damage/penetration limitations vs. modern aircraft a 0.50 cal. HMG has would seem to indicate that neither are to be the primary method of engaging aircraft.
IMO, aside from these systems and manpads, no other GBAD system is required to defend US ground forces from hostile aircraft. If one looks at how the US fights, the US establishes air superiority prior to ground forces becoming engaged. AFAIK this has been the case since the Korean War, if not WWII.
Given the technological and systemic advantages US aircraft have, I do not see this changing any time soon. It would likely require another country rising power relative to the US to equal the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is work being done on CLAWS/SLAMRAAM, basically a ground-launched version of the AIM-120-C-7 AMRAAM. CLAWS (Complementary Low Altitude Weapons System) is, like the name implies, intended to compliment the Avenger system. The SLAMRAAM (Surfaced-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) is intended to replace the current systems which utilize the Stinger.
If one looks at Global Security, there does not seem to be a significant number of SAM programs, though the information on old BMD systems like the various Nike missiles is not present.
At present, the US also still fields the HAWK SAM, which is (was?) a mid-ranged, medium altitude system developed in the 1950's and entering service initially in 1960. With the current upgrades, the HAWK is now also able to provide TBM (tactical ballistic missile) defences.
The other GBAD SAM, Chaparral, which IIRC used a missile derived from the AIM-9 Sidewinder, was removed from National Guard inventories by 1997.
This leaves the only other active US GBAD programs as the Patriot, MEADS and THAAD. From a US perspective, the MEADS program would replace the HAWK and part of the Patriot capability, while THAAD would perform a higher level of BMD than Patriot.
-Cheers
thats show a great difference in Ru(SU) and US understanding and doctrine on Airdefence.
Ru(SU) thinks that actions could be on territory where is no total air-superity of allied fighters and there is a possibility of fighting under the enemy air fire.
US thinks that first of they would have air superity and there will be no ground operations till air is not under control. and there is no such need for medium and short range mobile systems which cover troops on their way through fighting area
Am I right? please correct if I misunderstood something.
Ru(SU) thinks that actions could be on territory where is no total air-superity of allied fighters and there is a possibility of fighting under the enemy air fire.
US thinks that first of they would have air superity and there will be no ground operations till air is not under control. and there is no such need for medium and short range mobile systems which cover troops on their way through fighting area
Am I right? please correct if I misunderstood something.
You're generally correct.
I would add that the linebacker and avenger are in no way equivalents of the Pantsyr or Tunguska systems. Bof those systems have a central FCS that controls both gun and missile armaments, and it directed by a targetting radar. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) the linebacker and avenger simply have stinger missiles with an independent FCS attached to them. They lack an independent radar, and can not form IADS networks (they can't real-time datalink targetting data from other sources against aircraft), the way for eg. Tunguskas can.
I would add that the linebacker and avenger are in no way equivalents of the Pantsyr or Tunguska systems. Bof those systems have a central FCS that controls both gun and missile armaments, and it directed by a targetting radar. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) the linebacker and avenger simply have stinger missiles with an independent FCS attached to them. They lack an independent radar, and can not form IADS networks (they can't real-time datalink targetting data from other sources against aircraft), the way for eg. Tunguskas can.
Currently, no.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/SLAMRAAM-Program-Slammed-by-Inspector-General-04748/
Not exactly good work, it seems.
Phased out starting in 1994, last user was USMC until 2002. Primary intended Hawk use towards the end with improvement was against cruise missiles.
Generally regarded as one of the crappiest ground-to-air missiles ever.
Avenger can be linked into the Marine Air C2 System, which can provide it with radar data over datalink. As it's using an IR-guided missile, the datalink pretty much only points the system in the right direction. Gunner then has to take it from there to engaged the pointed-out target.
The US was seriously considering procuring a "decent" low-altitude air defense system in the early 80s, when they bought Roland systems from Germany. Wasn't politically opportune though (and too pricy), so the stuff was relegated after a few years to training helicopter and CAS pilots in highly-infested hostile air environments, and Avenger was developed instead.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something I am not clear on is if the SLAMRAAM project is a derivative of, or completely separate from the Kongsberg NASAMS which is itself a SAM system based off the AMRAAM missile.
Given that the NASAMS reached FOC in 1998, I am inclined to think they are completely different.
Also, speaking in general, the US and Russia/Soviet Union do have very different doctrines in terms of air defence. The US approach involves use of C5ISR assets to detect and track air threats, which are then perscuted with vectored fighter aircraft.
OTOH Russia/Soviet Union, which does not seem to enjoy the same degree of SA that the US would expect to, adds in GBAD sensors and systems, both to potentially augment the C4ISR assets and provide a response in place, in addition to or perhaps in lieu of (situational) fighter aircraft.
The only scenarios that I am aware of, where the US was not certain that its doctrine/approach would work, was in the event of a Soviet/WarPac assault on Western Europe. In this instance, just the sheer number of aircraft operating within the region could well overwhelm the C(3? 4?)ISR assets of the time, as well as the aircraft which would be tasked with providing an aerial response.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not quite sure what you are asking. How is what done?
He's wondering about whether there is a close-defense missile for Patriot sites, in order to intercept certain airborne counter-SAM threats.
Answer: Used to be Hawk, partially. Now there are only Stinger left for that. I think SLAMRAAM CLAWS is eyed for that position partially.
Same approach for Germany, with IRIS-T SL being eyed for exactly that capability for MEADS.
Answer: Used to be Hawk, partially. Now there are only Stinger left for that. I think SLAMRAAM CLAWS is eyed for that position partially.
Same approach for Germany, with IRIS-T SL being eyed for exactly that capability for MEADS.
About the only thing they share are the missiles. Different launcher(s), different radar, different FCS integration, different datalink integration. With SLAMRAAM-ER, not even the missiles are the same any more.
The difficulty with the program seems to mostly stem from a lack of specification on what it should actually do, as well as a lack of precise threat analysis to that end.
The only thing I can think of is C-RAM, which is basically Phalanx on a flat bed trailer.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It really depends on a given force's doctrine, and whether they have the platforms available to provide the system response called for by doctrine.
AFAIK Patriot SAM batteries at this point are principally intended to provide BMD, despite being originally intended to provide air defence against bombers IIRC.
From the standpoint of a BMD system, a Patriot battery would be positioned to protect a relatively immobile theatre-level strategic target. This might be something like a major base, HQ, supply dump, population centre etc. The sort of target which an opposing force might be inclined to attempt to strike at via ballistic missiles. Such a target would also most likely be behind the front lines.
With this in mind, that the Patriot battery is positioned behind the front lines, it would not come under air attack unless the opposing force had aircraft carry out a strike upon the battery. In order to do that, the hostile aircraft would need to penetrate into airspace that is monitored by US C5ISR systems and would have patrolling fighters. This is also assuming that the US has not already eliminated the aircraft the hostile force would have to employ.
This in turn takes one back to how the US conducts military campaigns in the modern era... One of the first things which is done is a rollback of an enemies IADS early on. A part of which is the disabling, if not outright destruction of the enemies air force.
Therefore, in order for a Patriot battery to come under air attack, it would have to be a situation where the US has ground troops deployed sufficiently to have a Patriot, yet not have control of the air. This could possible occur early in a campgian if the US were to take aggressive action against another nation with significant aircraft and IADS assets. Or as an alternative, if nation like I described were to launch an attack (particularly a surprise one) upon the US, US assets and forces... IMO neither of these scenarios are particularly likely.
-Cheers
Minimum range of Patriot (arming time) is somewhere around 8-10 km.
C-RAM isn't in that category. It's pretty much only intended for use against (light) artillery rockets and other light stuff. What's used are only MANPADS. There's even a manual for it, [FM 44-18-1].
"MANPAD teams are used by HIMAD units to compensate for system limitations. MANPAD teams can be incorporated into their defense to counter this low-flying aircraft threat. HIMAD radar systems are vulnerable to electronic countermeasures (ECM). Since MANPAD systems are not radar-directed missile systems, they do not fall prey to ECM tactics [...]
MANPAD teams should be positioned along avenues of approach likely to be used by enemy aircraft. Early engagement positions should be far enough away from the HIMAD site to insure that threat aircraft are engaged before they reach their bomb release point."
HIMAD = high-to-medium-altitude air-defense. Nike Hercules, Patriot, Hawk.
With Chaparral, MANPADS were also used in a similar capacity, e.g. to protect on-the-move. Roland would not have needed such additional assets, but was cancelled after 3 years of adaption and relegated to outfitting a single USANG btl between 1981 and 1988, with production of missiles for the US ending in '85.
C-RAM isn't in that category. It's pretty much only intended for use against (light) artillery rockets and other light stuff. What's used are only MANPADS. There's even a manual for it, [FM 44-18-1].
"MANPAD teams are used by HIMAD units to compensate for system limitations. MANPAD teams can be incorporated into their defense to counter this low-flying aircraft threat. HIMAD radar systems are vulnerable to electronic countermeasures (ECM). Since MANPAD systems are not radar-directed missile systems, they do not fall prey to ECM tactics [...]
MANPAD teams should be positioned along avenues of approach likely to be used by enemy aircraft. Early engagement positions should be far enough away from the HIMAD site to insure that threat aircraft are engaged before they reach their bomb release point."
HIMAD = high-to-medium-altitude air-defense. Nike Hercules, Patriot, Hawk.
With Chaparral, MANPADS were also used in a similar capacity, e.g. to protect on-the-move. Roland would not have needed such additional assets, but was cancelled after 3 years of adaption and relegated to outfitting a single USANG btl between 1981 and 1988, with production of missiles for the US ending in '85.
Todjaeger like I said earlier, the key distinction is that the Avenger and Linebacker do not have independent targetting radars, that can then transmit targetting, tracking, or detection, data to other elements of an IADS. Hence why they are a step behind the Tunguska or Pantsyr systems, which can effectively integrate into your network as a whole. They are closer to the Strela-10 system, with the notable exception that they carry a gun.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would have to disagree with this statement. Doctrine itself is really about the what and how of a response to a particular event or scenario. Going back to the 9/11 example I had given earlier, there were IIRC 6 fighter interceptors on hotpad status at the time, three pairs of two covering the eastern US. I would assume the number has since risen, particularly since they proved insufficient (for a number of reasons) though whether the number of interceptors has risen back to Cold War-era levels, I do not know.
This, to me would indicate that US doctrine does not consider it impossible for hostile action to occur over the US. Rather, the doctrine is that there would be an airborne/aircraft response to an aircraft threat, as opposed to a ground-based response via SAM or AA. Remember, this is speaking in broad and general terms, though I hope it does get the idea across.
Feanor, I agree that the Avenger and Linebacker systems do not have a radar system of their own, and therefore most likely are not able to provide detection and track information out to a larger IADS. As mentioned though, they can at least receive C2I information so they can participate in an IADS to an extent. Also, given the concerns about radar guided SAMS susceptibility to jamming and other ECM methods (not to mention ARM's) and the fact that the Stinger missile does not use radar guidance, it is not too surprising that it was not included onto the platforms.
-Cheers